”This evaluation makes clear that the EU data retention directive is completely disproportionate, allowing for the far-reaching retention of telecommunications data with no real justification. Under the directive, EU member states and telecommunications authorities can store masses of data based on unclear and ill-defined criteria, with no requirement to prove the retention is necessary for combating terrorism or organised crime. This far-reaching and groundless data retention is a clear infringement of the basic rights of EU citizens. The only proportionate response to these damning findings is to scrap the directive and we call on the Commission to take immediate steps to this end.

”The data retention directive was and remains an excessive knee-jerk response to terrorist attacks in Europe. There is no evidence that the far-reaching retention of data has led to any concrete results beyond compromising civil liberties. Following on from clear rulings by constitutional courts in Germany, Romania and the Czech Republic, it is now high time that the directive is revoked.”

In the press conference she presented anecdotal evidence that there have been at least some cases where the police have found Data Retention data useful, but in response to a direct question from a journalist she admitted that there is no systematic data on in how many cases the data has been used, or if the costs for implementing the directive in member states have been justified.

She also glossed over the fact that the Directive has been found unconstitutional by the courts in Germany, Romania, and the Czech Republic, and that Data Supervision Authorities and citizen’s rights groups are very critical.

It appears that Commissioner Malmström cares neither about protecting the fundamental rights of European citizens, nor even about making efficient use of the money that is spent on law enforcement activities.

All she wants is to push ahead with the Directive, to prove that it is the Commission that is the real centre of power in Europe, and that it has the capacity to punish Member States (such as Sweden) that do not do its bidding. This is a very disappointing attitude.

”It appears that Commissioner Malmström cares neither about protecting the fundamental rights of European citizen, nor even about making efficient use of the money that is spent on law enforcement activities.”

This is not true. According to the press release:

”But the evaluation report also identifies serious shortcomings. We need a more proportionate, common approach across the EU to this issue. I therefore intend to review the Directive to clarify who is allowed to access the data, the purpose and procedures for accessing it”

and

”Retained data was for example crucial to the success of Operation Rescue which helped reveal the identities of 670 suspected members of an international paedophile network and protect children from abuse in Member States where the directive has been transposed.”

No references, evidence or statistics has been produced that would support the suggestion that the information stored in accordance with the directive has been necessary to solve the highlighted (in the press release) crimes as presented, or that they would not have been solved using traditional methods.

When asked if there is *any* verifiable statistics or supporting evidence of any kind regarding what effect, if any, the stored information has had on crimes (rate, solved, etc.), commissioner Malmström had to admit that there is none. (See the televised press conference for details on this.)

Malmström’s stance appears to be resting on very shaky ground so far. This will be interesting to follow.

@nejtillpirater:
There is a difference between anecdotal data and systematic data. Even in the anecdotal cases it’s possible that the crimes could have been solved using traditional police work and data preservation (retention that targets specific individuals). It’s also evident that the majority of data requested by police and competent authorities is not very old, so the long retention periods seem questionable.

An operation with 670 *suspects* is easy to achieve. Just arrest 670 people. The last I heard, only 33 of the 670 were found guilty in court.
(There could be ongoing cases/appeals, so the numbers might change or have changed)

”No references, evidence or statistics has been produced that would support the suggestion that the information stored in accordance with the directive has been necessary to solve the highlighted (in the press release) crimes as presented, or that they would not have been solved using traditional methods.”

No references, evidence or statistics has been produced by Pirate MEP Christian Engström that would support the suggestion that the information stored in accordance with the directive has compromised any civil liberties.

”No references, evidence or statistics has been produced by Pirate MEP Christian Engström that would support the suggestion that the information stored in accordance with the directive has compromised any civil liberties.”

Commissioner Malmström as well as the report itself both acknowledge and describe that this (the compromising of civil liberties) has happened and continues to happen. I presume that people are not supposed to take some parts (the positive) of what they say for granted and not other parts (the negative), since that would be ridiculous.

It’s also important to remeber that since commissioner Malmström is tasked with implementing the directive (in some form) she will naturally tend to point to the benefits and avoiding mentioning the drawbacks, since this is the most strategically sound course of action in her position.

It follows that if there existed any statistics debunking the findings in the report which describes compromised civil liberties she would have presented those. It also follows that if there existed any statistics supporting the positive claims she would have presented those. The fact that neither type of supporting evidence has been presented is quite interesting.

The majority of child abuse takes place inside the child’s family. If Ms. Malmström really cares so much about preventing child abuse, she should instead push a directive about compulsory separation of children from their families at birth and raising them in government facilities. It would still violate everyone’s fundamental rights but at least it’d be much more effective in preventing child abuse.